Dale wrote:A condition of using this board is, and always has been, willingness to be civil and to refrain from personal attacks. Neither of these is easy to define and regional differences are known to apply. However, like p0rn0graphy, we know it when we see it. (If, you know, hypothetically, we ever have occasion to see it.)
...........
Just to get back on topic for a mo.........
One useful guide is whether a negative comment relates to content as opposed to against the person (ad hominem). The former is usually acceptable. The latter not (although there are degrees of uncivilness from humourous, ironic and self depracatory, up to full blown abuse of the other).
Now look at this comment:-
Read quickly it could give an impression that cocusflute is commenting on the content in stone's post. He is entitled to an opinion about content and entitled to express it civilly, even strongly. But then, when you read it carefully, you can see that cocusflute has not read stone's posts right through. He admits it.
So his comment could be seen as not addressing content but is an expression of his prejudice based on a partial reading of a post(or previous posts he read) which is being projected against stone. IMO, the comment does not comfortably address content but is an ad hominem attack in as much as it characterises stone's posts negatively on the basis of past experience WITHOUT testing that impression according to the current content of stone's post. Of course, the seriousness of this particular attack is a matter for stone and others to assess.
I think that this is an example of the fine line about such issues. I agree with Dale here about it being "not easy to define".